The Centers for Disease Control says at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html :
However, if you were born before 1957 but are not sure that you had the diseases or vaccines (or may have had the less effective type of measles vaccines), there is no significant risk or harm in getting another MMR vaccine if you do not have medical contraindication.
OK – that looks like a statistical inference or cutoff because without the vaccine, some of those boomers born in 1957 would have contracted measles when they were somewhat older:
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/about/history.html
Still doesn’t impact the false claims about cancer.
I’d also note that the year in which the vaccine first become available would not necessarily correlate to the year in which most children were vaccinated. It’s one thing to develop a vaccine; another to get to the point of having enough supplies and widespread acceptance that it is being routinely administered to most children.
I found a journal article with a chart (Figure 1) that shows the decline in measles rates after introduction of the vaccine. See https://cmr.asm.org/content/cmr/8/2/260.full.pdf
The trendline shows a precipitous drop in measles following introduction of the vaccine, but it wasn’t until around 1968 that the rate bottomed out.
Oh geez, I’m likely in the age group that got the sketchy 1963-67 measles vaccine. I will ask my doctor about it.
I don’t know about the hospital. I’ve had shingles in my eye, and yes it is horrible. I’ve had 5-6 outbreaks over the last 30 years, but the worst was the year my daughter was born (stress triggered). I went to the eye doctor 19 times in one year, often 2-3 times in a week. But I was never hospitalized.
@twoinanddone , wow, that’s a lot of shingles outbreaks! Have you since been vaccinated?
I was born in 1956. Brother had rubella around 1964, sister had measles around 1963. I got neither, they did not get the one they did not have. Parents assumed we had mild cases or were already immune. However, when I had titer checks before getting pregnant, I found I had no immunity to either. I had an MMR that day, even though we had all had the mumps in 1966 at the same time.
I remember my grandmother getting shingles outbreaks on a regular basis. 
That’s why I was horrified when DH got it. Fortunately, he got it only once. I’m so thankful for the vaccine!
I was born in 1955 and my sister was born in 1958. We both had measles in 1961 and chickenpox in 1963. Neither of us had mumps or rubella as children, as far as I know. I remember mumps as being much less common than the other childhood diseases, and I wonder why the authorities think that it was pretty much universal in my generation.
@twoinanddone wow that is a lot of Shingles! Also wondering if you’ve been vaccinated? Glad to hear you weren’t hospitalized, however my eye doctor flat out told me that if he sees it on my cornea, he will have me admitted. All doctors are different, I suppose.
I was born in the 1960’s and had the measles. I don’t remember it, but my mom said I had such a high fever that the doctor told her to put me in an ice bath to try and bring it down.
Regarding anti-vaccine terrorism:
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/whitecoat/an-outbreak-of-doubt-1.4373395/she-won-t-back-down-md-vows-to-fight-back-after-anti-vax-death-threats-1.4375644
https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/usa-judge-who-sent-anti-vaccine-mom-to-jail-gets-death-threats/
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/story?id=6150482&page=1
"Today, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), sent a letter to Sundar Pichai and Mark Zuckerberg, the Chief Executive Officers of Google and Facebook, respectively, to express concern that the company’s platforms including YouTube, Facebook and Instagram, are surfacing and recommending information that discourages parents from vaccinating their children, contributing to declining vaccination rates which could reverse progress made in tackling vaccine-preventable diseases.
“As a Member of Congress who is deeply concerned about declining vaccination rates, I am requesting additional information on the steps that you currently take to provide medically accurate information on vaccinations to your users, and to encourage you to consider additional steps you can take to address this growing problem,” Schiff wrote in the letter. “I was pleased to see YouTube’s recent announcement that it will no longer recommend videos that violate its community guidelines, such as conspiracy theories or medically inaccurate videos, and encourage further action to be taken related to vaccine misinformation.”
Is it realistic to expect a social media platform to screen everything that’s posted and decide whether any of it is “medically inaccurate”? I also wonder why social media platforms should be expected to do this when, say, Amazon is not expected to do it for the books it sells, and newspapers are not expected to do it for the comments submitted in response to their articles.
I strongly support immunization, but I also think that there are limits to what you can do in a free society in the 21st century to protect people from misinformation.
Will people never learn that seeing something in print doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true?
There are limits to our freedoms even in a “free society”. If people are going to get sick as a result of the willful ignorance of others, then they should have some recourse to act on those “others”.
As I have said before, if a child – or anyone-- is not vaccinated because of they or a parent being an anti-vaxxer, then if they do become ill, medical insurance should not have to pay for any medical costs incurred.
"Will people never learn that seeing something in print doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true? "
Its obviously a problem now and is going to get worse, IF AI’s ability to write phony news gets out.
“I strongly support immunization, but I also think that there are limits to what you can do in a free society in the 21st century to protect people from misinformation.”
When it comes to the health of the people in that free society, steps need to be taken that not all will agree with.
“Is it realistic to expect a social media platform to screen everything that’s posted and decide whether any of it is “medically inaccurate”?”
Maybe I’m mistaken, but my issue with Facebook is that they were accepting advertising dollars from anti-vax sites. That’s different from what one user shares with another. I certainly do expect them to screen the advertisers they choose to do business with.
It’s not unreasonable to expect folks to vet whomever they’re accepting $$$ from and not just randomly accept funds from anyone. In our state, several of us have stopped holding events at places that support the tobacco industry, especially the department of health. This has severely cut down the number of available venues, sadly.